Become a Fan

July 27, 2014

Experts from around the nation continue to speak out against laws that fail to increase public safety by targeting dogs based on their appearance vs the behavior of the dogs and their owners.

Experts, including Veterinarians, Dog Trainers, Animal Control Officers, Breeders and Humane Organizations, all universally agree that targeted public safety measures for dogs based on behavior, not breed, is most effective.

The latest official statement comes from the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) which just unveiled a new, official statement last week.

"The AVSAB's position is that such legislation -- often called breed-specific legislation (BSL) - is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorretly) as belonging to specific breeds.

The importance of reduction of dog bites is critical, however, the AVSAB's view is that matching pet dogs to appropriate households, adequate early socialization and appropriate training, and owner and community education are the most effective in preventing dog bites. Therefore, the AVSAB does support appropriate legislation regarding dangerous dogs, provideed that is education-based and not breed-specific."

The paper then goes into different sections, including facts about dog bite and laying out the scope of the problem with dog bites -- that while the problem is small, the AVSAB does support efforts to reduce this number.

The article then discusses: which breeds bites and many of the studies on breed-misidentification.

Then, there is a great section discussing "Why do dogs bite?" Because this comes from a group of behavior-focused vets, this part is particularly interesting.

"Aggression is a context-dependent behavior as associated with many different motivations (ie defensive, learned, fearful or territorial). Most dogs that show aggression do so to eliminate a perceived threat, either to their safety or to the possession of a resource...

"An appropriate understanding of canine signaling, or body language, can help both owners and potential victims predict the immediate interaction of a dog and take action to prevent a bite. Responsible breeding and puppy-raising play an important role in preventing aggressive behaviors, irrespective of breed or mix. Appropriate socialization and managing early onset of fears in young puppies can minimize the risk for future undesired behaviors and fears...

"Family dogs develop positive associations with humans through daily interactions, socialization and training. Dogs restricted from such interactions may be termed 'resident dogs.' Resident dogs have an owner, but spend most of their lives isolated, even abused by modern American standards. These dogs may be fenced or chained away from peopel and normal interactions, or simply ignored and don't benefit from early training. As a result, resident dogs may be more likely to express aggressiong and also perhaps other anxietys since fear of people, fear of other animals and fear of novel situations are among the most common explanations for aggression in dogs...."

The article then goes on to explore successful models using ideas from Chicago, Nevada and Calgary.

Overall, it's a very well-researched report that again ads further depth to the group of experts that oppose laws targeting specific breeds of dogs and instead favor breed-neutral laws. The trend toward this is very evident throughout the US, and will no-doubt continue.

The final reco in the paper invites readers to share the paper. Which I'm doing. I hope you will do the same.

March 22, 2014

Earlier this week, I provided a post that highlighted the position statements from the national organizations in opposition to laws that mandating the spaying/neutering of pets. While most of these organizations generally support spaying and neutering, they have all become aware of the problems the mandatory laws create -- particularly with spay/neuter because these laws most directly negatively impact low-income families, and lead to MORE animals in shelters, not less.

Today, I want to take a look at the expert opinions of the professional orgainzations with expertise in the health, training, and behavior of animals aroundnd the nation and their views on laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. Here are some clips from their statements about breed-specific laws, with more at the links provided. These organizations represent the largest and most influential animal welfare, sheltering, veterinary, animal control, dog training and legal organizations in the country. While many of these organizations spend a lot of their time arguing about other policies, on this, they are in complete agreement. Some items are bolded for emphasis by me.

National Animal Welfare Organizations

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

“HSUS opposes laws and ordinances aimed at forbidding or regulating dog ownership based solely on breed or type of dog.Breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not enhance public safety or reduce dog bite incidents. Rather, such laws, regulations and ordinances are costly to enforce, and harm families, dogs and communities.

The HSUS supports finding real and effective strategies for safe, humane community dog management and believes BSL is a distraction from that goal – it wastes valuable resources and charges a moral cost in the process.”

(The full report at the link below provides a wealth of research supporting their opinion).

“The ASPCA is not aware of credible evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer either for people or other companion animals. There is, however, evidence that such laws unfairly target responsible pet guardians and their well-socialized dogs, are inhumane and impede community safety and humane sheltering efforts.”

“The ASPCA supports reasonable “leash” laws and laws that regulate dogs who have caused unjustifiable injury or who present substantial danger to the public. However, the ASPCA opposes laws that ban specific breeds of dogs or that discriminate against particular breeds.”

“We draft and lobby for laws that protect communities from reckless owners and dangerous dogs. Best Friends opposes breed-discriminatory legislation, which arbitrarily targets particular dogs because of their appearance or breed. Canine profiling is not only ineffective at improving community safety, it is extremely expensive to enforce and a waste of tax dollars and lives.”

“While supporters of Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) argue that the only way to be safe from dog bites is to eradicate “dangerous breeds” from the community, there is little evidence that supports BSL as an effective means of reducing dog bites and dog attacks. On the contrary, studies have shown that it is not the breeds themselves that are dangerous, but unfavorable situations that are creating dangerous dogs. Often, the very research that some cite as “support” for BSL actual argues for alternative, more effective means.”

“By generalizing the behaviors of dogs that look a certain way, innocent dogs suffer and may even be euthanized without evidence that they pose a threat. Responsible dog owners are forced to give up their dogs, or move, cities and state spend money enforcing restrictions and bans instead of putting that money to better use by establishing and enforcing licensing and leash laws, and responding proactively to target owners of any dog that poses a risk to the community”

“The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructor, Inc. (NADOI) strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets or discriminates against certain dogs based only on their breed or appearance. Such laws are unfair because they assume that a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed. In fact, it is almost always the behavior of the owners of these dogs which makes them a danger to others.

Since 1965, the NADOI has worked to help people train their dogs to be well behaved. Also, NADOI educates dog owners about the responsibility not only to their dogs, but to their communities. Ordinances against dangerous dogs, unattended and loose dogs, nuisance barking and other objectionable dog behaviors should be enacted and aggressively enforced. These laws, unlike breed-specific laws, force all dog owners to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs.

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) is an organization representing professional animal trainers and animal behavior specialists. The IAABC strongly opposes any legislation specifically designed to target or discriminate against dogs based solely on their breed or appearance. The IAABC does not believe that a dog poses a danger to society solely because of its breed. Dogs can become dangerous as a result of faulty socialization, inappropriate training, poor living conditions and other factors having nothing to do with breed. The IAABC believes that the objectives behind breed specific legislation can be met more effectively through rigorous enforcement and, when necessary, the strengthening of existing laws. We fully understand and support the need for laws to protect society, human and animal alike; however, our organization feels that any new legislation should be based on specific behaviors and actions and should not discriminate based on breed alone.

“The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for the control of dangerous or vicious dogs that is fair, non-discriminatory and addresses dogs that are shown to be dangerous by their actions.

The APDT opposes any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype. Canine temperaments are widely varied and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, muscle to bone ratio, etc. The only predictor of behavior is behavior.

As an organization comprised of dog trainers, behaviorists and other animal professionals, the APDT is fully aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim and any dog can kill. A dangerous or vicious dog is the product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization and lack of proper training. The solution to preventing dog bites is education of owners, breeder and the general public about aggressive prevention, not legislation directed at certain breeds.

Singling out and publicly demonizing certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense disservice to those breeds and the people who care about them. Even more chilling, breed specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds as being inherently safe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representatives of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe. Also, designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influences, positively or negatively, by training. This misconception will likely produce a growing number of dangerous dogs as misinformed, complacent dog owners fail to practice responsible aggression-prevention measures.”

International Association of Canine Professionals

“The International Association of Canine Professionals strongly opposes legislation which discriminates against dogs and their owners by labeling certain dogs as “dangerous” or “vicious” based on breed or phenotype. Breed-specific legislation does not protect communities nor create a more responsible dog owner. Instead it negatively affects many law abiding dog owners and dogs within the targeted breeds.

Breed or breed type is only one factor which determines an individual dog’s temperament. Many other factors also influence behavior. In the case of aggressive acts by dogs, factors may include, but are not limited to: genetic predisposition; irresponsible handling; lack of animal management; general care; improper socialization and training; poor housing conditions; physical ailment, and lack of education and supervision.

A common and serious error in the ‘assumption of risk by breed’ is the inability to identify individual dogs by breed, according to an established breed standard or breed type. Purebred dogs which are registered with national clubs may or may not fit the ideal standard for their breed. As dogs are further distanced from the “ideal” standard by phenotype, especially in mixed breeds, it may become all but impossible for accurate identification.

The vast majority of dogs typically affected by breed-specific legislation are not “dangerous” by any standard. Their physical appearance alone cannot be used as an indicator of an aggressive nature. Breed-specific legislation creates an undue burden on responsible owners of targeted breeds – dogs which are most often not dangerous to their communities….”

“The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.”

“NAIA supports reasonable laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs and opposes breed-specific legislation in any form. Breed-specific laws target good dogs and responsible animal owners along with the bad.”

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are more likely to bite or kill, and thus, is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about .0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force Guide on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention.” (I’ve provided the link to that study above)

“Resolved, that the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial and local legislative bodies and government agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.

March 17, 2014

It seems like seldom a day goes by that I don't come across a conversation somewhere via social media of someone promoting the idea that we should make spaying & neutering your pets mandatory.

I get the logic, and the desire for it. I know many shelters are struggling with the number of animals that come into their shelters. I realize that it logically makes sense that if you mandate spay/neuter, you can stop the number of unwanted litters and thus lower shelter populations.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. By far the most common reason people don't alter their pets currently is because of cost or lack of access to low cost spay/neuter services. Making spay/neuter mandatory doesn't change this. In fact, it often makes the situation worse, because by the time the law gets involved, the pet owners is often looking at a $500 fine (or more) that they can't afford, on top of the surgery cost they couldn't afford.

The end result is almost always that animals with homes are forced into the shelter system because the law made their owners now longer able to afford them. Instead of HELPING owners to overcome obstacles -- like has been successfully done with low cost spay/neuter and target outreach programs across the nation -- mandatory spay/neuter laws are a punitive approach that actually punish people for being poor.

It's an ideal that has failed repeatedly in actual practice -- so much so that respected national organizations now almost unanimously oppose mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. So why, in spite of so much respected opposition, do some people still hold onto the idea that it just might work for them?

I think part of it is because I don't think people realize just how diverse, and consistent the opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is. So, today, I wanted to provide the position statements for many of the national organizations on MSN, and why they oppose the idea. Keep in mind that what many of these organizations are best at is disagreeing with each other -- yet, on this topic, they universally agree.

So with that, I'm providing some quotes from these organization's MSN policies -- with links to the full policies online when available. Many of these statements contain a lot more info at the links and are worth checking out. Some things are bolded for emphasis by me.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

“The ASPCA does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws, however, based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation. In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs for feral cats.”

Editor's note: The ASPCA write-up is particularly well documented, with more than a dozen citations, and well worth the read.

Best Friends Animal Society

“One of the goals of the city council should be to providing for public safety, in the most effective and comprehensive way possible. Everyone benefits from a safe society – both people and pets. Communities should be protecting against any dangerous dog, no matter the breed. Because breed discrimination fails to enhance public safety, Best Friends Animal Society opposes any breed “specific” of discriminatory measures, including mandatory sterilization for certain breeds.”

Letter submitted from Best Friends Animal Society, 2013

No Kill Advocacy Center

“Studies show that the primary reasons people do not sterilize their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services. The same is true for licensing. The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance. As a result, lower-income households with animals, those who are unaware of these laws and truly irresponsible people will not comply in significant numbers….furthermore, legislation may be worded so that the result of non-compliance is the impoundment… of the animal.”

Editor's Note: This writeup, "The Dark Side to Mandatory Laws" covers a lot of ground in terms of the impact of many different types of mandatory pet ownership laws and the impact they have on the ability for owners to keep their pets.

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

“The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating the spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for pets and may have unintended consequences.

“Although spay/neuter is an important part of effective population control programs, and may benefit individual dogs and cats if performed at the appropriate time, whether and when to spay/neuter specific animals requires the application of science and professional judgment to ensure the best outcome for veterinary patients and owners.”

American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT)

“The ACT and SFT believe that companion animals not intended for breeding should be spayed or neutered, however, both organizations believe that the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet’s age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of overies and testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of pets or their owners”

“While finding people to adopt dogs and cats is crucial, reducing the supply of incoming animals is the only way to end the pet overpopulation problem. The stakeholder group discusses the pros and cons of changing state laws to increase fines and penalties for not altering pets. However, compelling evidence exists to show demand for affordable spay/neuter services is high, particularly in underserved areas. Failure to spay or neuter is more correlated with limited access to affordable and proximate services than it is with resistance to sterilizing pets. Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

Mandatory spay/neuter laws greatly increase the work load of animal control offices, many of which are already strained financially. Animal control offices also find they are euthanizing more animals at taxpayer's expense becasue some owners choose to leave their animals at the shelter rather than complying with the law. A mandatory spay/neuter law also communicates the message that the municipality is not "dog friendly."